My mum says you are creepy and that your camera makes you look like a perv. Oh and Mum says that she knows about the hole in the fence.

Little Jimmy (from next door)

A well crafted letter like this one would spur any Nikon owner into action, and so it has.

I hope to (before being thrown off) write a number of articles to improve ones understanding and appreciation of street photography. As difficult as it might be I also hope to make the street photographer look something better than pervy in little Jimmys eyes..

“Humpth” you say.

Well I don’t know what that means so let me continue.

Im new to street and am going to offer my thoughts and experiences no matter how immature they may seem/are. If nothing else I can at least promise you that these thoughts are freshly picked and can be either proved or disproved in the field or forum.

There will be something for everyone and topics will likely include …

Rangefinder or DSLR: should Nikon DSLRs be available in Silver?
The person in the street objects: should you make it official and get a pic.
The Law: soap on a rope and other survival tips in prison
Safety and Security: hilarious Emergency Room antics.
Raw vs Jpeg: just kidding.
Criteque: rhymes with street
Cosmopolitan Street: the different spices used in different parts of the world.
Street Gear: is there a time for Vaseline and Pantyhose.

And if you are not into street ...pffferrrtt, yea right. Then that’s OK too and so I will add a bonus item just for you.

PB PM said:
Oh gosh, street photogs are almost as bad as the paparazzi... j/k ;-)

Scandal already.

The real crime is not committed by paparazzi at all but by camera weilding celebrities. My two favourites arehttp://www.richard-gere.us/Pilgrim.html
The lab that processed Richard's film for his book 'Pilgrim' were required to perform greater miracles than those of the tibetan monks as dear Richard (Dick to his friends) took slow film, no flash or lighting into a cave.

The other is Paris Hilton, I believe she did a film. Will see if I can find and post it here.

I am also surprised that you would single out street photogs in such a ugly manner when clearly a greater evil lurks. Macro Photographers and especially flower enthusiasts are a blood-thirsty lot, not one to throw about accusations, I offer the following and credible sources...

The Vegetable Rights Militant Movement (VRMM) is a nationally active, grassroots, vegetable liberation and defense organization. The VRMM differs from other vegetable activist organizations in that it really does all that it can to stop people from torturing, killing, humiliating, and ultimately eating vegetables and fruits.http://vegetablecruelty.com
and
A number of studies have shown that plants feel pain, and vegetables are picked and often eaten while still alive. Animal rights activists are often in the news, but has anyone ever protested for vegetable rights?http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html

Our Ant down Under has just proven that is still possible to type while wearing a straight jacket. Hope that you will get well soon my friend. It's OK you can still eat them veggies, just like the little white pills they are good for you

I too, have that sense of uncomfortable guiltiness while taking pictures of random people and kids on the street. Not for inappropriate use of course, But for photography as an art form. People have grown to fond of the creepy guy who sits in his car with a 600mm telephoto taking "architect" pictures of the park playground to make every one else with a big camera an "architect" photographer in their eyes.

One might ask the photographer who has the camera pointed right at them if they are taking a picture of them? In their response "No, I was taking a picture of that building behind you which you happened to be in front of"

I do some street photography, its great fun! but so annoying when people think you are a perv.
I have even been questioned by police .. but luckily that day I was photographing plants. (no plants were hurt that day... although I did photograph their reproductive organs)

I don't care how they look, it is extremely rude to take pictures of people without their permission like that, especially considering that many street photographers slap their photos all over the internet.

I honestly don't really like the local street photogs that I personally know for that very reason PB PM. They are evasive and just go up to people and snap a quick photo without so much as a thank you or explanation. They all think they are Bruce Gilden and literally put their cameras in people's faces to coerce "funny" surprised looks from them.

If they see a pretty girl then they hide behind the "oh I'm a street photographer and this is my art" shield. When the truth is they are acting more like "pervs" and just want a photo of a "hot" girl.

That's why people think anyone with a camera is creepy. In fact just the other day a guy got arrested for taking photos of a teenage girl undressing at a changing room at my local mall. Yeah that's an extreme example but that's why people get suspicious of men with "fancy" black cameras taking pictures of random people. We're pervs or terrorist or just perverted terrorist.

Part of being a street photographer is being the observer and not the participant. I don't consider invoking emotions or actions from people to snap their picture as street photography. That's not street photography for me.

Yeah, well you are the first one who comes out demanding shit. If you would come and inquire about the purpose of me taking your picture and then politely ask me to delete the picture I most likely would. Otherwise, you can take a walk.

I would just get all gangster on yo az poster and not say a damn thing except maybe, "Come 'Ear Sucka!"

In a way this "Bruce Gilden" type of street photography is better then sitting in your car or on a bench and using a long lens to get even closer to people. At least when you get in their face the "Gilden way" they have time to react to you where as from a distance they don't even know you are "in their face" and invading their "privacy".

poster said:
Yeah, well you are the first one who comes out demanding shit. If you would come and inquire about the purpose of me taking your picture and then politely ask me to delete the picture I most likely would. Otherwise, you can take a walk.

I was talking about Bruce Gilden, not you, although if you acted that way I'd do the same thing. Thankfully there aren't any street photographers in my area, if there were I'd give them a piece of my mind. As I said at the start, I consider street photogs as being nearly as low as paparazzi.

PB PM said:
Thankfully there aren't any street photographers in my area, if there were I'd give them a piece of my mind. As I said at the start, I consider street photogs as being nearly as low as paparazzi.

You know PB PM people actually hire "paparazzi" to follow them when they go to a party or restaurant. They want the attention and to be made to feel like a star or someone really important for the day. Give it a try you might like it :^)

poster said:
@Niko
And I would let you assault me, then slap a nice lawsuit on your ass, New York City style, mr gangsta.

You can't sue me if your brain dead and on a respirator! :^)

poster said:
Another point, using a long telephoto lens isn't exactly street photography.

For some it is. I'm not talking about 300 or 600mm lenses. I'm talking about 85 to 105mm. Standing or sitting in one place photographing the people walking towards or past you. Close ups of their faces etc before they see or notice you.